He's confrontational, volatile, and self-aggrandizing -- but those aren't the only reasons his former colleagues fear him becoming leader of the free world.

There is a serious debate among those who know Newt Gingrich well, particularly those who served with him in Congress and watched him not for the duration of a debate or speech but for hours at a time, day after day, year after year. On the one hand, there are those who fear for the country if he were ever to become president. That assessment seems a little extreme to others: they express no fear for the country because they believe (wrongly, I think) that he has no chance of becoming president. What they fear instead is the destruction of the Republican Party. The fact that those who know him best fear him the most makes it imperative to try to understand what a Gingrich nomination -- or presidency -- would mean, and to better understand who, exactly, this person is.

He is, above all, an actor. This is why he is so appealing to those who know only what they see on a stage.

To this point, almost all of assessments of the Gingrich candidacy have been focused on the immediate campaign (for the Republican nomination) and the prospective campaign (the subsequent contest against Barack Obama). Those evaluations concern themselves with debate technique, ability to exploit weakness, and likeability. But this is not a sporting event, it is about who will serve as the next president of the United States. I acknowledge that I have frequently observed that the American presidency is a relatively constrained executive position, with most of the nation's ultimate powers residing with the peoples' representatives in the House and Senate. But the presidency is not a minor governmental position; whoever holds that office has some ability to do good and a frighteningly large ability to do harm. Which is why we should be assessing the campaign for the Republican nomination not in terms of who can be nastiest in a head-to-head showdown with Obama, but who can be wise, constrained, and strategic in dealing with the French, the Germans, the Chinese, the Brazilians, and the North Koreans. Newt Gingrich is not half as smart as he thinks he is, nor as he has persuaded easily-conned journalists and primary voters he is (more on that in a moment). But smart or not, nobody has ever accused him of either wisdom or constraint. This campaign is not just about 'taking it to Obama'; the current administration has not been a great success on any front and there is more than one Republican in the field who could ensure that the Obama presidency does not extend beyond the current term. The issue is not who would be most aggressive on the stump but to whom we should entrust America's future, America's prosperity, and America's safety. I am not associated with any campaign but of the choices available to us, the worst -- and that is saying something -- is Newt Gingrich.

I have known Newt Gingrich for 33 years. For several, he and I served together as members of the House Republican leadership. And to be honest, my first reactions were positive. We who were already in the House were pleased when he finally won his first election, in 1978, after two unsuccessful tries. He and I talked occasionally, sometimes in one of our two offices, sometimes on the House floor, once as I was giving him a ride home. He was ambitious and eager to engage in the process. During his first term, I established a small gathering of members I considered to be intelligent, thoughtful, and committed to an optimistic and big-tent conservatism. Newt was one of the members I invited to participate, along with friends like Jack Kemp, Bob Livingston, and Ed Bethune, each of whom had reached beyond the stereotypical conservative constituency and had worked assiduously to reach out to minorities and people with new approaches to problem-solving (Kemp was probably the archetype). I invited speakers ranging from the head of the public school system in Washington, D.C., to foreign policy experts, and a Georgetown professor named Jeane Kirkpatrick before she switched her primary focus to foreign affairs. I was deliberately selective in inviting colleagues into that group and had no hesitation about including Newt.

Over time, however, a different Newt began to emerge. We all knew he was intelligent: there's a lot of brain power in Congress and Gingrich was certainly in the top hundred, maybe the top 50. (To those who have bought into his shtick about being the resident genius, it's a two-sided coin. There were always a number of people in the room who were much smarter, but he's no dummy. He could hold his own). Nonetheless, despite the fact that he was initially taken seriously, Newt began to adopt a pose. He would not simply walk into a meeting, he would walk in clutching armloads full of newspapers, magazines, and other assorted papers. He had taught history for a short time in a college and had no need to try to impress others; we all read a lot, but usually left the newspapers at the breakfast table and the briefing papers in our offices.

(Newt's penchant for lecturing was brought home to me several years later, when I was teaching at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. He developed a filmed "course" on government which he wanted to have offered for credit as a part of the Kennedy School curriculum. I was one of two faculty members tasked with reviewing the course, which mainly featured Newt, talking. I was then one of the few Republicans teaching at the Kennedy School and hoped this could be a good supplement to give our students an additional taste of how we Republicans view the government-citizen relationship. But the course, and the lectures that were its central feature, were shallow -- provocative and interesting at first, but essentially a patchwork of boiler-plate argument and hyperbole. The school had no choice but to send it back with a simple "no thanks.")

Newt also adopted another new practice in his meetings on the Hill, not just talking, but whipping out "briefing points." Newt became more and more entertaining and increasingly engendered a lot of eye-rolling. He also began a practice of "synthesizing." Because nobody particularly liked meetings and much that seemed self-evident was simply left unsaid, it became Newt's habit to rise late and proclaim what everybody in the room already knew but thought unnecessary to state. This, of course, left the impression of grandstanding but also led to the obvious conclusion that what he was saying was quite wise because it was precisely what each of us had also been thinking. I've always thought that if he had not entered politics, Newt should have gone to Hollywood; he has become unusually adept at adopting personas for public consumption. In that sense he is every bit as good as a Robert DeNiro or a Robert Duvall. He is, above all, an actor. This is why he is so appealing to those who know only what they see on a stage.

(Gingrich also gains credibility from claims of ties to the Reagan campaign; I cannot deny the claim since it is impossible to know every input into a presidential campaign, but since I was director of the policy task forces established in Congress to advise the Reagan campaign in 1980, named the task force members, and chaired our meetings with Reagan throughout the campaign, I would have thought I might have known of Gingrich's involvement, but perhaps it was undercover and he was secretly the brains behind that victory; I mean, who knows?)

I must say that none of this is particularly disturbing. We all try to shape how people see us, we all want to appear smarter than we may think ourselves to be, pats on the back are always welcome. Newt's self-aggrandizing antics were theater; weird, perhaps, but not anything to be concerned about. So why have so many people who know him now begun to warn about the possibility that he could become president -- and how has that come to pass, anyway?

First, as to how this prospect has arisen. Gingrich was a back-bencher in the House, noisy more than productive, but luck intervened to help him realize his ambitions. When Jim Wright succeeded Tip O'Neill as Speaker, Wright began to close down the process by which legislation is considered on the House floor, turning to the use of "closed rules" to prevent Republicans from offering amendments to the bills Wright and the Democratic leadership favored. Republicans had been in the minority for decades, but this was finally too much: when George H.W. Bush asked Republican Whip Dick Cheney to leave the House to take over the Department of Defense, Gingrich announced for the opening and won, though by only two votes. (If his opponent, Ed Madigan, had won, both of the party's top two leaders, good friends Madigan and Bob Michel, would have come from the same state delegation, Illinois). Even though the Los Angeles Times declared it a victory by a "confrontational conservative," it was only the first part of that description -- "confrontational" -- that was accurate. Newt Gingrich's only philosophy is Newt Gingrich and ironically he won because liberal Republicans, angry at being cut out of the legislative process, wanted the confrontation that Gingrich promised. Conservatives like Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert, who became Speaker after House Republicans became tired of Gingrich's strong-arm tactics, had worked actively to prevent Gingrich's election to the leadership.

Yet this does not explain why so many -- myself included -- are so disturbed at the possibility of a Gingrich presidency. So first let us consider the attributes that are desirable in a President of the United States, whose job description includes representing America on the world stage and directing the administrative activities of the government in accordance with federal law. To describe Gingrich as "volatile" is like describing Picasso as somebody who liked to draw. Political chatterers point to this volatility as something to be concerned about in terms of a possible Gingrich eruption in the debates; I worry about it in terms of America's relationships with other nations. Gingrich sees the world as a battleground -- more than any other man alive, he is responsible for creating the non-stop partisan warfare that has made American government so dysfunctional. Even before his election as Republican Whip in 1989, Gingrich had begun to demand a no-compromise war for political power; it is his sole belief system. It is distinctly at odds with the Founders' conception of peoples' representatives gathering in a Congress to reason together to shape the nation's laws. It is why they argued against creating strong political parties like the ones they had left behind in Europe. But to Gingrich, parties -- confrontational parties -- are essential tools to be used to gain, and hold, power. It is power, not wise governance, that exerts the magnetic pull.

Gingrich would like to become a successor to the Republican Party's first president, Abraham Lincoln, yet no two men could be more different. Lincoln was a uniter who famously created a "team of rivals" and preached reconciliation in the wake of war; Gingrich is committed to the crushing of dissent. Lincoln was sufficiently committed to the rule of law that after suspending habeas corpus in the Civil War (one of the two occasions on which such an act is permissible), he asked the Congress, which had been in recess, to authorize the action; Gingrich wants to eliminate judges, and even entire courts, which do not rule as he wishes them to.

To imagine a Gingrich presidency, one must turn to his attenuated term as Speaker of the House (attenuated because his fellow Republicans could take no more of it). Gingrich took control of determining who could chair House committees and swept away long-serving conservatives who he deemed insufficiently confrontational. If he was uncertain whether committees would do his bidding without question, he bypassed them altogether and created his own Newt-appointed task forces to write the laws. Leadership positions were awarded to those who raised the most money for the party. The party of Newt rose within, and became the core of, the Republican side of the House of Representatives. Congress as a governing institution was transformed into a Roman-style arena for combat. Imagine now a cadre built around allegiance to Newt Gingrich at the center of American government: not even Lyndon Johnson was so insistent on fealty.

The first caucuses and primaries are near at hand. This is no longer a game. It's fun to watch the spectacle of hopefuls clawing at each other to win a party nomination. It is indeed, great sport. But it is now time to turn away from the spectacle of American Gladiator and consider not who we most like to watch -- the entertainer -- and begin to think seriously about the future of the United States. It is not a future we want to enter with a Newt Gingrich in the Oval Office.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

We can all agree that Millennials are the worst. But what is a Millennial? A fight between The New York Times and Slate inspired us to try and figure that out.

This article is from the archive of our partner .

We can all agree that Millennials are the worst. But what is a Millennial? A fight between The New York Times and Slate inspired us to try and figure that out.

After the Times ran a column giving employers tips on how to deal with Millennials (for example, they need regular naps) (I didn't read the article; that's from my experience), Slate's Amanda Hess pointed out that the examples the Times used to demonstrate their points weren't actually Millennials. Some of the people quoted in the article were as old as 37, which was considered elderly only 5,000 short years ago.

The age of employees of The Wire, the humble website you are currently reading, varies widely, meaning that we too have in the past wondered where the boundaries for the various generations were drawn. Is a 37-year-old who gets text-message condolences from her friends a Millennial by virtue of her behavior? Or is she some other generation, because she was born super long ago? (Sorry, 37-year-old Rebecca Soffer who is a friend of a friend of mine and who I met once! You're not actually that old!) Since The Wire is committed to Broadening Human Understanding™, I decided to find out where generational boundaries are drawn.